The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine."In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, with abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibi

Although the author mentions a global decline of the amphibians throughout the world resulted by the global pollution of water and air, he/she believes that there is another reason for the reduction of the amphibian population in Xanadu’s Park. The author of the statement above finds the trout – which are known to eat amphibian eggs – the cause that amphibian species drastically reduced in Xanadu National Park. The conclusion needs to be supported by the evidence which currently the argument lacks them.

First, the author needs to show that Xanadu is a different isolated place from the other parts of the world to show that air or water pollution is not reached there yet. Both pollution can readily be dispersed, especially airborne pollution can readily disperse through the world. Therefore, it is highly possible that air pollution or water pollution affected the Xanadu either. Then the causes of amphibian reduction in Xanadu would not be different from the causes of the global reduction and this seriously weakens the author’s conclusion.

Secondly, the author needs to provide statistical evidence of the egg-laying rate of the Xanadu’s amphibians and the rate of consumption of them by the trout. It is possible that no matter how much the trout ate the eggs, still there were millions of eggs remaining intact in the water. Furthermore, the author also needs to provide evidence on the population of the trout throughout these years. It is possible that few trout were introduced to the park in 1975, very few that they could not eliminate the significant numbers of the eggs. Even the trout might be extinct there in one year later. Then the conclusion would be a fallacy. Therefore the number of trout was needed to be provided in the past years and in the present.

Finally, the author needs evidence attesting that there were no other reasons having a hand in the reduction of the amphibian population. It is possible that the amphibians have developed genetic abnormalities which affected their reproduction. The drought years might replace the water with a dry land, and that affected the amphibians. The climate changes might make them scarce. Thus, the author needs an evidence attesting that no other reason caused such a decline in the population. Furthermore, the author needs to provide evidence about the population and the ratio of male and female amphibians in that park. It is also possible that the females were quite fewer than the males. This might be the reason why they become smaller in numbers because the males could not lay eggs to increase the population.

In short, as discussed, the author’s argument needs several vital evidence to strength the conclusion. The current form of the argument with the lack of the enumerated evidence is open to different explanations. Therefore the current unsupported conclusion cannot be tenable.